Individual: Canter\'s Behavior Management Cycle:

Individual: Canter's Behavior Management Cycle: A Case Study

The average teacher usually lacks in-depth, competency-based training for classroom management. Most teachers are taught an eclectic mix of various educational methods - a bit of William Glasser, mixed with Thomas Gordon, tinctured with Rudolf Dreikurs, and Lee Canter added to that mix -- and then told to follow an approach that coheres to their personality. The analogy is introducing nonswimmers to various strokes -- the crawl stroke, breast stroke, back stroke, and side stroke -- then rowed to the middle of a lake, flung overboard, and told to swim using the method that best suits them. Thoroughly confused with so many different -- and contradictory directions, most would likely sink rather than survive. A similar situation, contested Canter (1976), faces the beginning teacher in a class of approximately of 30-odd possibly disruptive children. Consequently, too few teachers survive.

Teachers must be trained thoroughly in classroom management skills. It is not sufficient for them to know how to teach content. They will never get to the content unless they know how to create a positive environment in which students know how to behave. (Canter, Web)

It was to that end that Canter began to analyze the behavior of expert teachers and found them to have various behaviors in common: they were assertive, namely they taught students how to behave. They established clear rules in their classroom setting, communicated those rules to the students, and taught them how to follow them. They practiced positive reinforcement and praised every student at least once a day. Finally, when student chose to break rules, the teachers immediately implemented firm and consistent negative consequences. Based on these observations, Canter devised his cycle management theory using these three axioms as bedrock.

Canter's program has often been criticized for its alleged focus on negativity, but he insists that it is not: "The key to Assertive Discipline is catching students being good; recognizing and supporting them when they behave appropriately and letting them know you like it, day in and day out." (Canter, Web)

Paul

Paul, 9 years old, seemed be mentally disturbed. He came from a divorced family and had a brother several years older than himself. Potentially smart and definitely charming, (peak of potential of America's paradigmatic corporate executive or film star), he would delight in causing trouble in Miss. Z's class, arousing most of the kids and often influencing them to follow him. Tricks of his would include: simulating animal noises; throwing paper pellets at the teacher(s); passing notes around; scampering from chair to chair; overturning desks (he was strong); tossing various paraphernalia at the windows; and so forth. Former teachers had tried various disciplinary techniques. They had lost and usually left the school as a result. Paul had a reputation -- to the other students' delight -- in firing teachers. More significantly, the school, although small, was controlled by a principal and assistant who conflicted over disciplinary methods, were uncertain about how to deal with Paul, and, mostly, did not wish to be constantly referred to about his problems, or have to enter the classroom to drag him out. (Paul would not appear to them of his own accord). His mother, working full-time, likewise did not wish -- and could not afford -- to leave her work in order to address Paul's constant shenanigans. Miss. Z, the new teacher, decided to try her hand at this school's most challenging case. Canter recommended using one, rather than a mixture of disciplines (Canter, 1992). She had read Canter's various books; had seen his skills in practice, and was impressed. She decided to use Paul as 'case study' in order to base Canter's techniques on him.

The Cycle in practice

1. Rules

On Ms. Z's first day in school she underlines three letters on the blackboard: SWL. This she explains stands for:

Students Will Learn.

Beneath these she groups 4 rules (1. No calling out; 2. No leaving chair, 3. No eating in class, 4. Respectful talking and conduct to teacher and classmates.) On the wall, has already been pasted a colorful chart with the exact same rules, pictures illustrating their intent.

Miss Z. then carefully and thoroughly walks their content, explaining the rules and their parallel consequence (both reward and punishment -- although Canter seems to emphasize punishment) when obeyed or disobeyed. Miss Z. then asks students to restate the rules in their own language, questions the students to ascertain that they have understood the directions, and immediately engages the students in a particular activity in order to test their understanding.

The consequences are phrased so as to closely reflect the rules. For instance, Paul snaps another student's pencil; he has to buy her a new one. Most importantly, the teacher has to choose consequences with which she is comfortable, and the consequences should never be psychologically or physically harmful to the students. A student should never be humiliated, for instance having to stand in front of the class as object of ridicule. Preferably, names and checks on the board should not be used either. Although Canter (1976) once suggested the latter as consequence, he now advocates teacher's writing an offending student's name on a clipboard or in the roll book and telling student, "you broke a rule (e.g. talked out of context). That's a check." (1992)

2. Positive repetition

Teachers tend to focus on student's negative behavior, not according them attention when they behave. Hence Paul's negative conduct gets exacerbated for it is reinforced. Miss Z. is determined to break that pattern, by zoning in on Paul when he adheres to class rules, and by then accentuating that positive behavior.